Submitted 22 hours ago by bzIlsn8Fxi@lemmy.world to [deleted]
Your definition of capitalism is wrong.
Capitalism is where an ownership class possesses the means of production, a labor class which operates the means of production is undercompensated, and the amount by which they are undercompensated is passed to the ownership class.
"Unregulated competition" is libertarianism, which is just the shitty cherry on top of capitalism.
Nothing you've said is at all "leftist".
Depends what you mean by, “enjoy capitalism”.
Enjoy being able to buy what ever you can afford even if it’s something silly that you don’t really need? Sure. Also wholly possible under many other economic systems, because “capitalism” is not simply using money.
Enjoy it in that you enjoy stealing value from employees and getting unjustly rich off of their labor?
Not so much.
Enjoy? sure.
Legitimately and wholeheartedly defend, even to yourself? Less sure.
Very much yes!
Leftist doesn’t mean communist at all
To be any kind of leftist at all, you have to believe in equality in society, in providing for all, and opposing hierarchy. There are many interpretations of how to get to such a place, though socialism encompasses the biggest ones.
You can enjoy the things you have access to in the current system, but enjoying the system itself, which forces us to enrich billionaires, destroys the planet, pushes us into poverty, and wastes our time and potential working on what the market wants instead of what we want, is fundamentally anti-leftist.
What would be an example of a non-socialist but leftist school of thought?
Nothing. Liberals don’t know the difference between being a leftist and being on a national left.
In terms of societal left, it would be equal opportunity and fairness without discrimination in any kind of economic apparatus. Maybe some sort of meritocracy?
Yes it does.
Aside from your odd definition of capitalism and its outcomes, which other people have addressed, the answer to the headline question is: yes.
Karl Marx, for example, is famously very critical of what he saw as the inherent exploitation in capitalism. He believed that you could not have capitalism without exploitation and that it was therefore an unethical system that should be defeated and superseded by a new economic system without exploitation. He also held that capitalism was inherently contradictory and that it therefore not only should be destroyed, but that it must be destroyed.
However: even Marx acknowledged that capitalism was an enormous improvement on the previously existing social system of feudalism, because it also produced far greater wealth through the development of new technology (this is a key difference between Marxism and the earlier ‘utopian socialism’, which saw technology itself as an evil, and which his theories largely replaced).
Marx also welcomed the fact that capitalism destroyed (as he saw it) some earlier forms of oppression (albeit while introducing new ones). Marx’s letter to Abraham Lincoln congratulating him on his re-election discusses the American Revolution and Civil War in precisely these terms.
So, you can enjoy the greater (obviously not ‘infinite’!) abundance of goods that capitalism has produced, you can acknowledge its positive impact on technological development and its material improvements of the lives of millions of people and be not only a leftist but a fully orthodox Marxist… just so long as you also acknowledge that capitalism is also an exploitative and self-destructive force that should, can and must be defeated.
If this question isn’t fake, it shows how senselessly polarized pictures drawn by both sides have become.
I don’t know where you got your definition of capitalism “results in economic singularities and infinite wealth for everyone”, but it’s wrong. The West is currently in late-stage capitalism, which is always the outcome of a capitalist system: wealth and power gets consolidated into the hands of the few, while the many suffer.
The term “leftist” can best be described politically, as supporting the political left. The problem with that term currently is that it’s used to define non-political ideology as well, like social aspects such as empathy/sympathy. I’m unsure where you stand when you call yourself “leftist” so it’s hard to say if your definition can mix with capitalism.
Fundamentally, in my opinion no, enjoying capitalsim is supporting a system that inherently causes inequality, wealth gaps, and the concept of profits over people, which are the opposite of a standard definition of “leftist” beliefs no matter how you define it.
My question to you is, would you still blindly support capitalism if you were one of the many who didn’t benefit from it?
What’s your definition of capitalism? What exactly is it about capitalism that you enjoy that is specific to capitalism?
Yes, politics isn’t a binary system. It’s a spectrum. There’s multiple dimensions. For each of them you can have your own opinion. I dare say there are no two people with identical political profiles.
Some dimensions are (source chatgpt):
You can even vary within a dimension depending on the topic, for instance globalist on environmental topics but otherwise nationalist.
chatgpt aside this is a much more realistic way to look at it than left / right.
Sounds like Anarcho-Capitalism
Absolutely.
Where are you from OP? Right-left is a spectrum. There is nuance. Where I live, polarization is a problem, due to some far right fuckers holding our politics hostage. Any nuance is immediately derided as being ‘far left’.
There’s contexts for the left-right sperctrum, like social, economic or cultural. To throw in a few crude generalizations: social leftists are for a more equal society for the rich and poor alike with equal chances in terms of education, affordable housing and medical care. Cultural leftists are more open to foreign influences like migrants and niche cultural stuff and economic leftists lean toward a more honest economic structure with more government regulation on big corporations.
So it is perfectly possible to be culturally / socially left-ish, but economic right-ish.
If your friends always play Monopoly and you get dragged into it, do you refuse to have fun on principle? Or do you choose to have a blast with your friends, occasionally chuckle at the game’s shortcomings, and indulge in exploiting some of its weaknesses to ensure you come out on top? (That last one is optional and depends on you getting assigned to play the banker)
Great questions. I play Monopoly willingly. I see it as important satire and fun.
Sure
Difficult. Very difficult, because there is hardly any capitalism left on this planet.
no.
That’s called social democracy. At its core, being left means being anticapitalist. Social democracy itself does not reject capitalism, though does regulate it strongly.
One reason people may favour social democracy is that it allows for a market economy, but another for opposition is that this still enables bribery through lobbies, as in all forms of capitalism.
No it’s not
Beacon@fedia.io 20 hours ago
No it doesn't. I have no idea where you came up with that thought, but it's totally incorrect. And that's the entire fundamental basis of your concept, so everything else is incorrect too
So your opinion is even wrong, because it's an opinion about a false concept
ApollosArrow@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
Yes, this confused me. Also wouldn’t unregulated capitalism just end with one company in the end?
Beacon@fedia.io 19 hours ago
Yes, the end result of unregulated capitalism is always power getting concentrated into a handful of individuals while the rest of the planet's billions of people are effectively in poverty and powerless